MEEP: Discord, Ban Log, Deleting Content

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 93
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    About MEEP

    MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) are official comment periods where moderation proposes and solicits feedback on various potential moderation policies. MEEPs allow moderation to pose questions about moderation policy to the site usership and empower the site usership to either ratify or reject moderation's proposals. In order for a moderation proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of those expressing a preference must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, in a MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. This ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be.

    This MEEP will be open for user votes until 10:00am, EST, on 1/31/19. This voting period may be extended by up to twelve hours if there are fewer than 10 votes on any of the specific questions put to the usership. Votes cast after the deadline will not be considered. 

    The Proposals

    Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of the proposal is included below each proposal as well.

    1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for severe misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?

    Since the site's discord is an official extension of DART, should moderation be able to punish, on DART, serious misconduct which occurs on the discord? Any problems on discord threaten spillover effects on the site, and could have real, negative implications for site users. Serious misconduct includes such things as doxxing and making credible threats of violence, and does not include such things as calling someone "stupid" or "retarded."

    2. Should there be a public ban log?

    A previous referendum concluded that a public ban log should not be instituted. The concerns at the time were that such a ban log would make it harder for banned users to re-integrate into the site and that a ban log would constitute an unacceptable form of public shaming which would itself be a personal attack. That being said, the proliferation of public discussions of bans has effectively publicized bans in the same way that a ban log would. Therefore, this question is being re-posed to the community to gauge the community's views.

    3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?

    It is currently the case that only cases of severe misconduct are deleted. Posts which simply call other users "stupid," for example, are left up. Call-out threads, per a previous referendum, are locked, not deleted. A "yes" vote on this question would require moderation to delete ALL posts containing misconduct, from posts which say that other users are "stupid" to the serious misconduct which is already being deleted to call-out threads. Moderation is concerned that a regime of deletion could be construed as censorship, which is why it is not currently moderation's policy to delete all COC-violating content. Deletion of such content also makes it harder for moderation to catalog evidence of conduct violations. Keep in mind: a "yes" vote would require the deletion of a significant amount of site content.

    Please vote "Yes" or "No" to each question, clearly indicating which question you are responding to when you do so. Thank you for your participation in this promised MEEP process!
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
    YES BUT NOT RETROACTIVELY as the bad conduct on Discord was made with respect given to the values of the site being considered to not apply to Discord.

    2. Should there be a public ban log?
    NO. There should be a private one that is selectively made available.

    3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
    YES BUT 'deleted' should not mean it gets destroyed from your (mod) end of things.

    UNLESS IT IS SPAM, in which case deletion is acceptable in the pure sense of the term.
  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 2,274
    3
    3
    6
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    No one on powers cared about this before. This is you covering your ball sack to be a prick. 
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 724
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    No opinion on any of the others but a strong no on question 3. Obviously stuff like doxxing or anything illegal (such as a death threat) should be deleted but everything else should be left up 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @thett3
    No it shouldn't, instead the CoC should be changed to be more liberal if you believe the content isn't too offensive or disgusting to be left on-site.
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. No
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    People are wrong about #3
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    Anyone with a few functioning brain cells should (and frankly, will) vote "No" for #3. Clearly, Mike has aspirations for expanding the userbase beyond the core DDO users, and to turn this site into just another "safe space" for sensitive people will surely drive newcomers away. That said, newcomers are very likely to be adults given the aforementioned communities (See Mike's thread), or at the very least mature, but it is incontestable that some of the potential newcomers among others will call others "stupid" at some point. 

    I feel that the current rules are already strict enough, why add insult to injury? 

    And given that #3 should be no, #1 should be yes so that toxic members cannot find "loopholes" such as doxxing in the discord because "it wasn't a rule to begin with." 

    #2 is another strong no, and not just for humiliation's sake, but also because we already have a very clear indicator of who is banned from one click on somebody's profile. If we should have the "name slash", then extending the public shaming to the log is pointless. If we shouldn't, then features that bring about humiliation should be unacceptable across the board.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @bsh1
    1.) Yes
    2.) Yes (if possible using the hunger games tribute death music).
    3.) No.

  • Stronn
    Stronn avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 511
    2
    1
    4
    Stronn avatar
    Stronn
    --> @bsh1
    1. Yes
    2. Indifferent
    3. No
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 3,006
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @bsh1

    1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?

    Yes. There are rules to be abided by. 

    2. Should there be a public ban log?

    No. Freedom of speech is important, but abiding by the rules should be encouraged so that debate is respectful. I think disciplinary action such as a temporary ban is acceptable when the language is overtly hateful or malicious, but the public listing of such bans is not. 

    3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?

    No, the Posts should be left as a witness. Violent threats are a different matter. They should be addressed but the post should stand. It is a record if the person follows through with the threat. I think a serious and obvious threat of injury should be the only case which results in a ban but the post should remain intact. Calling someone stupid, although not desirable, is a matter of freedom of speech. If you think someone has stated something that is stupid or you think their worldview is stupid, I think you should be free to say so. I do not like censorship. 

    An obvious and clear thread of violence should result in a ban of six, or nine months, or even a year. However, I think the person should be able to explain themselves if they want to. When speaking of morality sometimes people have used an example of someone killing someone else to emphasize a point. In no way do I endorse violence but I understand when it is used in an argument to make a point. 

    I'm not sure when a clear and obvious threat to someone or many people should be reported to higher authorities, but that is also something that should be considered. Notifying the proper authority in such a case is a civic duty if the threat is direct and unmistakable. 



  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I suppose people don't have to think things through when voting yes or no. May as well flip a coin and if most say 'no' it's magically the idiot who said 'yes' to #3.



  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    "Your content is so vile that you'll be punished for it but we'll leave it up there for others to see and to represent our website to non-users."

    LOL, sure, vote no to #3, ignore the logic and hypocrisy.

  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    The moral good and intellectually adequate will vote for a favorable outcome. It's common knowledge that people will advocate for anything that sustains their liberty in speaking over a rule that severely caps said liberty.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Proposal 1

    Yes - 6
    No - 0

    Proposal 2

    Yes - 1
    No - 4

    Proposal 3

    Yes - 1
    No - 6

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @bsh1
    1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
    Yes, but perhaps some deference can be applied to past violations.

    2. Should there be a public ban log?
    An anonymized ban log would be a good idea.  Something like, "(anonymous) was banned for 4 days due to harassment and or other specific CoC violations."  I would like to see this in order to be able to quickly tell if people are enforcing CoC and what content they are focusing on.  The order in which the log appears could be randomized in order to make it more difficult to match a 1 to 1 violation to a specific user by chronological order alone.

    Without this information, secretive enforcement can easily appear to be capricious and tyrannical.

    Yes.

    3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
    Non egregious CoC violations should be given a strike-thru instead of deleted wholesale.  Other, egregious violations should be replaced with an entry saying "content deleted due to CoC violation".

    When non egregious CoC violations are left standing (unmarked), it gives the appearance of acceptable behavior.

    No.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    The moral good and intellectually adequate will vote for a favorable outcome.
    Tautology, means nothing for either side of question 3.

    It's common knowledge that people will advocate for anything that sustains their liberty in speaking over a rule that severely caps said liberty.
    Not everyone wants liberty. It is not a more liberal system that punishes but leaves things up for people to see, it is simply idiotic as it is just as strict but worse at cleaning up the mess.
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    The outcome is discernable nonetheless, which is what I meant to convey. Generally, people here are not both morally and intellectually deficient enough to appoint censorship.

    It is not just as strict if you are censored btw...

    You don't get banned right off the bat for saying "stupid", but it would sure as hell get deleted in the scenario that enough of us voted "yes" for #3.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Why should it be left up there? Why should your insulting of another user be on public display if it's severe enough to get warned and punished for depending on previous actions?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Generally, people here are not both morally and intellectually deficient enough to appoint censorship.
    So, what's your view on child pornography?
  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 4,170
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @RationalMadman
    No it shouldn't, instead the CoC should be changed to be more liberal if you believe the content isn't too offensive or disgusting to be left on-site.

    I agree with this, however since we currently do not have a MEEP proposal relating to such a change voting no on 3 seems to be the next best thing.

    (This is not an official vote by me yet, just a comment)


  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Discipulus_Didicit
    If this next best thing is employed, it will be the sole thing deterring the best thing being employed.

    This comes at a cost and it isn't a light one. "Anything other than doxxing or threats" incorporates a whole lot else that is vile to show others and display as site-permitted content despite being site-deterred content.
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    Why should your insulting of another user be on public display if it's severe enough to get warned and punished for depending on previous actions

    The problem is that it wouldn't have to be severe, and nothing here says that previous misconduct would need to occur for deletion. I could absolutely be wrong, but the inasmuch as it is vague, it raises a concerning issue.

    So, what's your view on child pornography?

    Child porn should be censored. I despise the mere notion of pedophilia and a child being forced into sexual acts, or any depiction of such.

    I didn't intend to make some universal statement on internet censorship though, and tried to avoid that by not saying "muh free speech". If a post suggests that somebody should commit suicide, then it ought to be removed. I do not sit with the idea that anybody who exhanges even the mildest insult should be treated as nefarious enough to have their post removed.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @RationalMadman
    It seems there should be a vote on proposed changes to the rules before there is a vote on implementing the proposed changes themselves.
  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 4,170
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @RationalMadman
    I disagree that voting no on 3 deters the mods from proposing amendments to the CoC. Due to the fact that MEEP proposals are begun by executive rather than legislative means such proposals cannot ever come up in the first place unless the mods allow it, which I do not think is very likely.